Compositional analysis of water-soluble materials in corn stover

Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Baylor University, One Bear Place, Box 97348, Waco, Texas 76798, USA.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (Impact Factor: 3.11). 08/2007; 55(15):5912-8. DOI: 10.1021/jf0700327
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Corn stover is one of the leading feedstock candidates for commodity-scale biomass-to-ethanol processing. The composition of water-soluble materials in corn stover has been determined with greater than 90% mass closure in four of five representative samples. The mass percentage of water-soluble materials in tested stover samples varied from 14 to 27% on a dry weight basis. Over 30 previously unknown constituents of aqueous extracts were identified and quantified using a variety of chromatographic techniques. Monomeric sugars (primarily glucose and fructose) were found to be the predominant water-soluble components of corn stover, accounting for 30-46% of the dry weight of extractives (4-12% of the dry weight of feedstocks). Additional constituents contributing to the mass balance for extractives included various alditols (3-7%), aliphatic acids (7-21%), inorganic ions (10-18%), oligomeric sugars (4-12%), and a distribution of oligomers tentatively identified as being derived from phenolic glycosides (10-18%).

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Maize- and prairie-based systems were investigated as cellulosic feedstocks by conducting a 9 ha side-by-side comparison on fertile soils in the Midwestern United States. Maize was grown continuously with adequate fertilization over years both with and without a winter rye cover crop, and the 31-species reconstructed prairie was grown with and without spring nitrogen fertilization. Both maize stover and prairie biomass were harvested in the fall. We compared amounts of cellulosic biomass produced and harvested, carbohydrate contents as measured by both dietary and detergent methods, and estimated cellulosic ethanol yields per hectare. From 2009–2013, the cropping system with the largest non-grain biomass yield was fertilized prairie, averaging 10.4 Mg ha−1 year−1 aboveground biomass with average harvest removals of 7.8 Mg ha−1 year−1. The unfertilized prairie produced 7.4 Mg ha−1 year−1 aboveground biomass, with average harvests of 5.3 Mg ha−1 year−1. Lowest cellulosic (non-grain) biomass harvests were obtained from continuous maize systems, averaging 3.5 Mg ha−1 year−1 when grown with, and 3.7 Mg ha−1 year−1 when grown without a winter rye cover crop, respectively. Unfertilized prairie biomass and maize stover had equivalent dietary-determined potential biomass ethanol yields at 330 g ethanol kg−1 dry biomass, but fertilized prairie was lower at 315. The detergent method did not accurately capture these differences. Over the five-year period of the experiment, unfertilized and fertilized prairie systems averaged 810 and 1,790 L potential cellulosic ethanol ha−1 year−1 more than the maize systems, respectively. Differences in harvested biomass accounted for >90 % of ethanol yield variation.
    BioEnergy Research 12/2014; DOI:10.1007/s12155-014-9494-9 · 3.40 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Spent mushroom substrate (SMS) is a biomass waste generated from mushroom production. About 5kg of SMS is generated for every kg of mushroom produced. In this study, solid state anaerobic digestion (SS-AD) of SMS, wheat straw, yard trimmings, and their mixtures was investigated at different feedstock to effluent ratios. SMS was found to be highly degradable, which resulted in inhibition of SS-AD due to volatile fatty acid (VFA) accumulation and a decrease in pH. This issue was addressed by co-digestion of SMS with either yard trimmings or wheat straw. SS-AD of SMS/yard trimmings achieved a cumulative methane yield of 194L/kg VS, which was 16 and 2 times higher than that from SMS and yard trimmings, respectively. SS-AD of SMS/wheat straw obtained a cumulative methane yield of 269L/kg VS, which was 23 times as high as that from SMS and comparable to that from wheat straw.
    Bioresource Technology 07/2014; 169C:468-474. DOI:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.07.020 · 5.04 Impact Factor
  • Source